Bombay High Court
Baburo S/O Deorao Bochare And ... vs Shivaji S/O Ninaji Borade And ... on 12 October, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 13.wp.134.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.134 OF 2018
Baburao s/o Deorao Bochare and others
Vs.
Shivaji s/o Ninaji Borade and others
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N. S. Badhe, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. A. J. Thakkar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 12/10/2021
Heard Mr. Badhe, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for
respondent No.1. None appears for other respondents
though served.
2. Mr. Badhe, learned counsel for the
petitioners has raised the preliminary objection regarding
the power or authority of the Sub Divisional Officer to
entertain a revision under Section 23(2A) of the
Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 by contending that the Sub
Divisional Officer does not fall within the designations as
stated therein namely, Assistant Collector, Deputy
Collector or Assistant Commissioner and therefore, would
be incompetent to entertain and decide the revision.
3. Reliance was placed on Prashant
Prabhakarrao Mukkawar Vs. The Sub-divisional Officer
and others, Writ Petition No.387 of 2017 and connected
(2) 13.wp.134.2018
writ petition, in which the reference made to the learned
Division Bench was answered on 31.07.2019 in the
following terms:
"13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
answer the reference and hold that the delegation
of power by the Collector under sub-section (2A)
of Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act to the
Deputy Collector or Assistant Collector, who is
working as the Sub-Divisional Officer of the
concerned divisions of the district, is correct, legal
and proper. We, however, hold that if any dispute
arises as to whether a particular Sub-Divisional
Officer is not the Assistant Collector or Deputy
Collector or Assistant Commissioner, as is referred
to in sub-section (2A) of Section 23 of the said
Act, it can be decided on its own merits, and in
none of the decisions referred to above, such
dispute was ever raised and decided."
4. By inviting my attention to the Government
Order dated 07.06.2017, he contends that the Sub
Divisional Officer, Malkapur, District Buldhana, did not
fall within the aforesaid designations and therefore, was
incompetent to entertain the revision.
5. A perusal of para 7 of the Judgment in
reference, would indicate that the learned Division Bench
by placing reliance on Section 2(34) of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code has categorically observed as under:
"7. ..... Merely because such Deputy or Assistant
Collector is also performing the function of the
Sub-Divisional Officer in respect of sub-division
under sub-section (1) of Section 4 or is called as
such under sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, he would not
be incompetent to act as a delegatee of the
Collector under sub-section (2A) of Section 23 of
(3) 13.wp.134.2018
the said Act. Hence, such delegation of power is
permissible and would entitle him to exercise
jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of Section 23
of the said Act, to decide revision. ......."
6. Considering which, I do not think that there
is any merits in the preliminary objection regarding the
authority of the Sub-Divisional Officer to entertain the
revision, the same, therefore, is rejected.
7. List the matter on 25.10.2021 for further
consideration on merits.
JUDGE
Sarkate
